SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1757

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Rajesh K. Arya, Presiding Member, Preetinder Singh, Member
Keshav Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/92/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Verma, Mukesh Verma
For the Respondents: Mrigank Sharma

Consumers can assert rights under the Consumer Protection Act even after taking possession, regarding unmet service obligations and deficient amenities.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 47(1)(a)(ii) and 49(2) - Consumer complaints against developers alleging deficient and negligent services and unfair trade practices. Allotments and agreements executed, with complainants not receiving occupancy certificates, parking spaces, and unfair charging of maintenance fees. The Commission ruled that despite possession being taken, grievances still exist regarding services and amenities promised, therefore valid complaints. (Paras 1-21)

(B) Jurisdiction - Affirmed that territorial jurisdiction exists as per Section 47(4) and complaints are not barred by limitation due to continuing failure to provide services. (Paras 13-19)

Facts of the case:
Multiple consumers alleged unfair trade practices by developers failing to provide necessary amenities and certificates in residential projects, while seeking refunds and compensation. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The Commission mandates developers to provide occupancy certificates, parking spaces, and refund a percentage of maintenance charges, ensuring consumer rights are upheld against unfair practices. (Paras 21)

Issues: Do the complainants retain rights to claim services post possession? Are the charges claimed by developers justifiable? (Paras 15-18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined ongoing grievances allow for claims under consumer protection laws, despite possession and sale deeds, emphasizing consumer welfare. (Paras 15-16)

Result: Complaints partly accepted with directions against the opposite parties. (Paras 21)

Table of Content
1. overview of consumer complaints regarding services. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding service deficiencies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's observation on jurisdiction and consumer rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. legal principles established regarding ongoing consumer rights. (Para 16 , 20)
5. conclusion with directives to opposite parties. (Para 21)

PER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Brief facts:-

By this order, we propose to dispose of the above captioned 5 consumer complaints under Section 47 (1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 alleging deficient & negligent services, unfair trade practice against the opposite parties besides terming the certain terms & conditions of the maintenance agreement to be illegal, null and void being one-sided and unfair contract. Since, the issues involved in these complaints, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, therefore, we are of the opinion that the same can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

In these complaints, the respective complainants, seeking directions to the opposite parties to provide Occupancy Certificate of building to the complainant(s); pay penal interest on the deposited amount till occupancy certificate is not obtained by the opposite parties; refund society maintenance charges, SMC, IFMC and Gas Pipe Line charges etc. in the absence of such Occupancy Certificate; provide open on surface parking besides claiming compensation etc. for mental agony and harassment and 50,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. However, the facts are being culled from Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2024 titled “Keshav Bansal Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.” as follows:-

Brief facts : (CC/92/2024)

3. The complainant was allotted a residential flat bearing No.2262, 2nd Floor, Tower/Block in the project of the opposite parties i.e. City of Dreams-2 [COD2 14] situated in Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide allotment letter dated 31.12.2020, Annexure C-2, for a total consideration price of 37,42,234/-. An agreement for sale was executed on 31.12.2020 itself. Maintenance Agreement was also got executed on 31.12.2020 itself. As per Clause 7.1 of the said agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered on or before July 2021 and as per Clause 7.2, such possession as to be offered upon obtaining the occupancy certificate from the competent authority by the opposite parties. The complainant paid an amount of 39,80,963/- to the opposite parties including stamp duty, registration fee charges and society maintenance charges, which they duly acknowledged. After offer of possession, the Sale Deed qua the flat in question, was got registered on 25.05.2022, Annexure C-4).

4. However, the details with regard to case No., Flat No./Floor No./Tower No., Area of flat(s), Total Sale Consideration, Date of Agreement for Sale, Date of Maintenance Agreement, Date of Possession Letter, Date of execution of Sale Deed, involved in these bunch of cases, are tabulated here-in-below:-

Sr. NoCase No.Flat No./Floor No./Tower No.Total Sale ConsiderationDate of Agreement for SaleDate of maintenance agreement.Date of Possession LetterDate of execution of Sale Deed
1.92/20242262, 2nd Floor, Tower/Block No.COD2 1437,42,234/-31.12.202031.12.202026.09.202225.05.2022
2.93/20242256, 2nd Floor, Tower/Block No.COD2 1335,00,400/-28.02.202128.02.202109.01.202308.07.2022
3.94/20241261, 1st Floor, Tower No.COD2 1433,61,820/-11.05.201911.05.201926.09.202230.06.2022
4.95/20240263,Ground Floor, Tower/Block No.COD2 1436,66,478/-01.03.202123.12.202027.12.202224.06.2022
5.96/20243069, 3rd Floor, COD2 01 (Elina Floors)30,50,000/-04.12.201723.03.201923.03.201919.12.2019

5. It has been stated that since the opposite parties are not in possession of any Occupancy Certificate/completion certificate, therefore, such a physical possession is illegal and invalid. It has further been stated that the opposite parties even cann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top